In a Wednesday meeting described by one source as “extremely direct” and by another as “very blunt,” Cantor (R-Va.) ripped into Bachus, explaining in no uncertain terms that it was unacceptable for Bachus to mark up the bill without having run it by GOP leaders and other chairmen with jurisdiction over its provisions.

Story Continued Below

The Alabama Republican abruptly canceled the vote, which was scheduled for next week.

It’s the kind of leadership smackdown that could have repercussions down the road for Bachus, who nearly lost out on the Financial Services gavel last year because of a lack of confidence in his management abilities and who could face a move to oust him in the next Congress. It also underscores the tension between members of Congress over efforts to “clean up” Washington — some worry that a rush to legislate could result in bad laws and others believe that foot-dragging could result in a bad Congress.

Bachus, clearly anxious to create a good-government portfolio in the wake of a “60 Minutes” piece on his stock trades — some of which netted five-figure gains in a single day — put the STOCK Act on the fast track. The bill, written by Democrats Tim Walz (D-Minn.) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), would make it illegal for elected officials and their aides to make financial transactions while they are in possession of “nonpublic information.”

Cantor delivered the cease-and-desist order on behalf of GOP leaders, other chairmen and rank-and-file lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who were concerned that Bachus could help give the bill life by having the committee approve it. In particular, it put members of the committee in a tough spot: Even if they think the bill’s a bad idea, it’s hard to go home and explain why they voted against it.

For supporters, that’s the plan.

Some committee members are angry with Bachus for putting them on the line to counter criticism that his 2008 trading activity was shady.

“We’re not going to cover Spencer’s ass by passing a half-baked bill,” one Republican member of the panel told POLITICO. “Even Barney Frank didn’t pass it in his two terms as chairman and Dem[ocrats] are the lead sponsors. It’s all about Spencer’s bad political position, not the contents of the policy.”